Skip to main content

WTA coaching rules

If you've been watching any of the WTA matches on Betfair Live Video, you will have noticed players being coached at the change of ends. It's an interesting development which might take a little bit of skill away, but certainly adds another variable to a match.

Here are the rules:

WTA Tour allows on-court coaching next year

New York: Women's tennis players will be able to consult with their coaches during matches starting next year (2009), though the WTA Tour's motivation for the move seems to be aiding fans as much as competitors.

To visit their players on court, coaches must agree to wear a microphone so television audiences can hear the conversations. The long-discussed rule change was approved by the Tour's board last week, CEO Larry Scott said on Wednesday during the US Open.

''It was a polarizing issue, to be sure, a lot of potential consequences in the eyes of our players and tournaments, and that's why we took so long to really think it through,'' he said. ''But at the end of the day, I think this step shows a real commitment from our athletes and from our sport towards innovation, being as fan-friendly as possible and being as responsive to television as possible without altering the fundamentals of the sport.''

Coaches will be allowed to visit their players once per set, and only during the allotted changeover time. They can also come on court when the opponent takes a medical break. Scott said he also hopes it will discourage players from taking unnecessary medical breaks.

The on-court coaching is limited to WTA Tour events and doesn't include Grand Slams.

Note that last part - that is crucial. We will see a few players be able to change their game and win matches they shouldn't on the Tour, but crumble without their security blanket in the Slams.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also,

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur